Historically, it is true that ethanol has been less
expensive than gasoline. But not this year. Ethanol is now on
the verge of becoming the more expensive fuel, based on recent
benchmark New York Harbor prices.

Blame it on corn, the ingredient of choice for making
ethanol in North America. Towering corn stalks typically
dominate the midsummer landscape across the farm belt, but not
this year, as a devastating drought threatens to wipe out as
much as a quarter of the US corn crop.

Ontario officials say 10% to 20% of the province's crop may
be ruined.

That has sent the corn futures soaring to near-record highs
in recent weeks, pushing up the price of everything it is used
for, including ethanol and animal feed, and creating havoc
throughout the global food chain.

The price spike is also raising some awkward questions about
the wisdom of Canadian and US rules that require refiners to
blend ethanol into their gasoline.

If there is not enough corn to go around, where should it go
- food, feed or fuel?

Roughly 40% of the US corn crop now goes to ethanol, and the
share increases every year, amplifying price pressures when the
market is tight. The rest of the US crop goes to food, animal
feed and various industrial uses.

And because the US is a major global corn exporter, the
drought is making food more expensive everywhere.

Barack Obama is under pressure to scrap the ethanol mandate
in the face of the extreme conditions - the worst to hit the
farm belt since the early 1950s. Cattle ranchers, poultry
producers and food producers have all asked the US Environmental Protection Agency to
suspend the mandate until corn prices ease.

Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations recently appealed to the Obama administration
for relief after the agency's food index shot up 6% in
July.

An immediate, temporary suspension of that mandate
would give some respite to the market and allow more of the
crop to be channelled toward food and feed uses, the
FAO's Brazilian director-general, Jose Graziano da Silva,
pleaded in a recent opinion piece in the Financial Times.

Reaction has been surprisingly muted in Canada, where a
two-year-old federal mandate requires that refiners blend at
least 5% renewable fuel into gasoline supplies. Several
provinces impose additional regional mandates, including
Ontario and British Columbia. The US imposed a 10% mandate five
years ago.

The Canadian ethanol industry is already playing
defense, insisting that high energy prices, not diversion of
corn to ethanol plants, are causing food prices to spike.

In a statement, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association
said cutting ethanol production would not meaningfully
lower food prices or alleviate drought concerns.

The federal government has offered two main reasons for the
ethanol mandate: meeting the country's greenhouse-gas reduction
targets and making Canada a clean energy leader.

The mandate has spawned a thriving domestic industry, which
now counts roughly 20 ethanol plants, producing some 2.2
billion liters/year. That's enough to meet roughly 85% of the
legislated demand.

Canadian refineries get the rest from the United States and
are now the largest foreign buyer of US ethanol.

So Canada is at least indirectly contributing to the global
supply crunch for corn, identified by the UN.

And while it is true that ethanol and other biofuels curb greenhouse-gas emissions, it is a benefit that
comes at a steep price to taxpayers.

Ottawa and the provinces generously subsidize the industry
to the tune of roughly $250 million/year, making ethanol one of
Ottawa's priciest greenhouse-gas reduction schemes going.

If there is a more efficient way to lower greenhouse gases,
Ottawa and the provinces should do it.

And if ethanol truly is the answer to making energy less
expensive and more sustainable - as the industry insists - then
the product should stand on its own in the market, without
subsidies or mandates.

The push for ethanol has always been good
politics. But in a world of scarcity and steep prices, it is no
longer an obvious policy winner.

The Globe and Mail (via Dow Jones
Newswires)

Have your say

All comments are subject to editorial review.
All fields are compulsory.

What often isn't mentioned in articles like this is the corn used for ethanol is not the same sweet corn used for food. I welcome anyone to hold a bbq with ethanol corn. It's only other use is animal feed. When corn is converted to ethanol only the starch is removed and the more valuable protein that remains is sold in a byproduct called DDG. Limiting ethanol production this year will not reduce the cost of your corn flakes, but it might reduce the cost of your steak just a little.

Bobby Fontaine08.21.2012

I wrote the ethanol article below. You are free to edit and publish it however you wish

For the Ethanol Mandate, the Real Issue is Speculators by Bobby Fontaine

The problem is not so much grain supplies but the prices going so high that third world countries and the food relief organizations that support them can't afford to feed their people anymore. This leads to political unrest and death all over the world, like last years "Arab Spring" being a direct result of rising grain prices caused by federal ethanol mandates. Ethanol supporters can defend high grain prices by showing that ever since ethanol has placed higher demands on corn markets, more corn has been grown to meet it. That however doesn't change the fact that the reason grain prices are so high even though there is ample supply is speculators. And the only reason speculators feel confident enough to risk billions of dollars to drive up grain prices is because federal biofuel mandates insure higher than normal demand on corn, and soybean for biodiesel.

Higher demand for soy and corn, along with being able to sell it for higher prices, causes farmers to choose to grow them over other crops, which puts pressure on the supply side for all related food markets, including meat producers who use grain for animal feed. This gives speculators a field day of betting that all commodities markets will rise. This in turn forces the cost of everything we eat to unrealistically high levels. But since we have such a strong economy, we won’t starve. This however does keep us from being able to make our economy stronger, which is causing a lot of people to become unemployed and stay that way. In third world countries, higher grain prices means they don’t eat, which in the long run, the unrest that follows costs us greatly, to say nothing of the humanitarian aspect of what we’re doing to them.

No reason for starvation

What I’m saying is we will have enough grain to supply all the markets in need, hopefully with next year bringing in a better crop so we can re- supply depleted stores. But speculators are forcing prices up to unrealistic levels so we can no longer afford to buy them without a great deal of pain. This way they make money at everyone’s else’s expense, including their own since they are human beings and will suffer through whatever they cause for the rest of us. This is to say nothing of the fact that they will also have to help pay to clean up after the problems they cause through taxes and straining the economy further, perhaps beyond repair. And the only reason they are able to do this is because they know which way the markets are pointing as long as we have mandates that insure prices will keep rising.

Federal laws that require ethanol and biodiesel be used as fuel forces such a large shift in the direction of grain markets, and subsequently all food markets, that speculators can easily see what no one is supposed to be smart enough to see, which is the direction